Arizona weekly citizen., 1887-06-25
were held to no more than locate the

"
 the first and third class. A grant by bouDdarle5 where the grant gives the boundaries with no limitation Hs to the amount When, in Mexican grants, boundaries are given and a limitation upon the quantity embraced. within the boundaries IS intended, words express
 lng such intention are generally used. ! Thus ID the Fremont case the bCunda- rles stated embraced many leagues more than the quantity granted, (Plco case | suprsl HIgueras. case supra, was of the latter cluss. In YOntZ case, 23 How. [ 4yS. l. was held that ID adludicsting
 these grants, 1t is proper to look tt all the severa! parts, RSd ceremonies ne- cessary to complete The title and tO take them as one act" That ''this court has
 uniformly held. that the petition to the
 Governor for the land andi his conces- | sion must be taken as one act, and the
 decree usually proceeded on the petition
 which described the land as respected
 locah,y and quantity" In that case
 ''the application wns for two leagues
 more or less according b the bou ldaries
 0f said mission of San Jose The Judgment oi the Court restricting the
 grant of two leagues was affirmed. Fas sstt's case. 70 How, 4l5. was a grant of R | portion Ot place known by tue name | Los CapitancillOs and the portion there Of confirmed is bonded and described
 bs follows, to-xit: (b0uniary) "The
 said premises containing three fourths of "A square leagues of land a little more
 or less Counsel In that case argued l tug same grounds gs here, aud cited the
 same cases. D. 423. But the Court de c.des we reject the words 'a little more | or less as having no meaning ma sys- lem of location and survey Ike that or the United States. and that the claim Of
 the grantee Is valid for the quantity cjearly expressed" Had IL not been so
 clear the Court says, ''iI might have b-rn uroger 10 refer tO the petition and the diseh0, etc. But there ls DO neees- si for additional inquiries. The grant
 k uot affected with my ambiguity" +
 Was held to be a grant for ihree-fOur.hs os square league h DAguIrre's
 oas-, Wall. 3l6, the gran; mentioned DO quantity and reserves no -urpl Is and tne Court says lhe boundary must govern. he above cited cases cgme ID from Cal li.Tnia under the cOioniZ i.iYG laws oi tLe Mexican Republic. Tus c.a:m bs- fore u- was pe;itIOnsd fpF oi Inc Span ish gOyernmeUt, out the flli decree was
 made by officers 1t the Republic. The
 laws were not, however, materially changed. The term square league (sitio gauads mayOr) Is a technical Span I,h aud Mexl1an legal term, as we'll es- ts5l.shed, defined and known as sec tipn Ur township in the surveys of the UnItsd States. It wss square "the four sides of which each measured 5D0
 vAras." Cusmilton's Mexican law, 203). The distance from the centre of each sitio iO each fl its sides should be meas
 urrd directly tO the cardinal points of the
 horizon and should be 25oO vsras." This term Is found in the case before us as well as the cases cited.
 \ Conveyance of square league de.dsi as certain form mud quantity of land as a conveyance Of 6 section. To convey e section would slweys mean a square. the siies pointing [" the four cardinal points, each one mile m length. containing Gi0 acres. Iu this case n grgnt of four square leagues is asked for, and nowhere throughout the whole eXpediente Is any other quantity men toned, and m the final decree tine hgb- endum clause grants four square leagues. The price per league Is sp- ! praised, three ht SGO, as having Water, ! and one at 50. The whole eXpediente is royal grgut and partakes largely of l the nature Ot judIcisl sale and should | be construed by the same rlles. that IS stricty. = Com. 3iI, BlackstOreE CGarles River bridge VI. Warren Bridge, etc. I Peters J-9.
 l It's prOcedure provided by law in- vnked by grantees petition and should not be construed As prIvate deed or | conVeyBuce. The whole record should 1 b. considered together, m order to de ' termins vh1t is granted. So cOnstrm1g ! ;he sameIt is evident that this IS a grant of four square leagues, Rt the San | Rafael de la Zauja and no more. It is urged inst the words of limitations, viz: | four square leagues, are to be dlsreyRrd- | d as "fsi-a demCnstTRtiO non nCcst | the survey be treated ss measuring the | land conveyed, and Hs that includes l6 | square leagues, the boundary must govern ! | am aware oi the principle invoked; that | where there is a doubt as tO what IS con- ! veyed and where the boundary is cer- | tain and dIsagrees with the quantity | mentioned the latter Rs "fRlss non EOcet. | But thIs rule IS established and can be | invoked only to aid ths evident intenT. | Where, to apply the rule defeats the ! evident intent, It is disregarsed. leases cited supral. And see Webb vs. Webb, | 70 Ala. GIG, Davis vs. RaInsiord l7 Mass. 2l0. Jackson vs. Loomis IS John. Sl. Norwood vs. Byrd l Richardson $. c.
 l3j. Jackson vs. Blodgett l6 John. lI2. | Proctor vs. Pool I Dev. 37O.
 Four square leagues At the place La | Zania, can be no other than the four
 leagues that touch that point, that Is,
 that corner there. Any other construc- | ton makes this grant void for uncer-
 .aiuity. Shackleiord vs. Bailey B III. | 3gl. 10 \. '. 630 I must hold therefore.
 that fence erected outside ot these four
 square leagues, IS Gn unlawful enclosure
 of the public lands.
 FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT FOR THE Goy-
 ERNMENT.
 I will find. 1st: That the defendants, grantors, in due time filed with the Sur
 yeyor General O, the Territory of Ari-
 z9na, petihon and accOmpanyiDs tltle
 papers.
 2i: That inc Surveyor General made
 a report and preliminary survey which
 has been submitted to his superior off cers and which WAS submitted to con
 gress.
 3i: That the lands described m the petition have been enclosed as therein alleged; that the space as enclosed IS within the boundaries measured as
 stated in ihe expediente and claimed m the petition, ]; k without the lands in- closed m the preliminary survey and m the report of the Surveyor General, that it is withou; the four square leagues
 coneriug CD the place calen the San Rafael de la Zanis.
 And the conclusion Ofls IS that the place where the enclosure was made
 was public lands and the enclosure was therefore unlawful. W. ". BARNES.
 Those Robbers.
 r la.- ]. .k- ..- hak